What should I argue here, the resolution stated at the very top, or the revised resolution that my opponent proposed in the actual first round? There is a large difference between "ALL drugs should be legalized", and "ALL drugs* should be legalized."

*With the exception of meth or heroin.

I ask because I misread the word 'illegal', thinking my opponent made a mistake in the actual legality. I just want to be sure what the standard is here so that I know what I should be arguing.

What should I argue here, the resolution stated at the very top, or the revised resolution that my opponent proposed in the actual first round? There is a large difference between "ALL drugs should be legalized", and "ALL drugs* should be legalized."

*With the exception of meth or heroin.

I ask because I misread the word 'illegal', thinking my opponent made a mistake in the actual legality. I just want to be sure what the standard is here so that I know what I should be arguing.

Since your opponent didn't specify that you must accept what he said, you can figure the actual resolution to be: "All drugs should be legalized."

"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite

What should I argue here, the resolution stated at the very top, or the revised resolution that my opponent proposed in the actual first round? There is a large difference between "ALL drugs should be legalized", and "ALL drugs* should be legalized."

*With the exception of meth or heroin.

I ask because I misread the word 'illegal', thinking my opponent made a mistake in the actual legality. I just want to be sure what the standard is here so that I know what I should be arguing.

You could say he lost by de-facto... But I'd vote against you on principle <_<

The resolution is ultimately more than just the Resolution at top... It's the resolution plus context found in the R1 opening statement. The Resolution may say "All" but the context implies all except heroin and meth.

I'm actually interested in this because I was in a tourney and was assigned to argue his position. Now, I'm seeing if I could do it the other way around. Ah, harm principle, you never cease to amaze me with how flexible you are in your interpretation.

No, I intend to take this debate seriously, and think to be safe, I will simply argue a drug worse than either meth or heroin.